Jump to content

L129A1 Sharpshooter


brown dog

Recommended Posts

Not had a crack with one of these.

Kindly offered the chance today, thought some pics may be of interest:20150121_123123_zpsaaae5549.jpg

 

lmt%20side%20view_zpsqke1q7cf.jpg

lmt%20ammo_zpsqdvmkzfd.jpg

 

Excellent 2 stage trigger - exactly the same feel as a Geissele.

 

First-ever 10 round group (new rifle, wrong shoulder, cold....etc :lol::rolleyes: ):

lmt%20target%201_zpsvz7ssmhh.jpg

 

Second group ever.

Another 10 rounds.

A bloomin accurate rifle: issue ammo, bipod without rear rest - the limiter here was me.

(and....new rifle, wrong shoulder, cold....etc :lol::rolleyes: )

lmt%20target_zps1z42etlg.jpg

lmt%20suppressorprofile_zpsj8tokc8n.jpg

lmt%20case_zpsjudz87es.jpg

 

 

I actually thought the big ACOG was rather excellent - crystal clear on a sh1te day.

I don't particularly like chevron aiming points, but it struck me as a great piece of optical kit - certainly for the purpose for which it is intended.

lmt%201_zpsqkfc4w3q.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reticle is calibrated for firing 147gn M80 ball from a 22" bBbl on a M240 machine-gun. It doesn't match up to anything ballistically.

While the optics and reticle are fine, it wasn't the right choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you shot the Sharpshooter version, but were using the suppressor from the Sniper Support Weapon.

 

It's only when you see one of these in the flesh that you can appreciate how good the quality is. The monolithic upper is one impressive bit of machining. These sorts of designs only really became feasible in the last 10 years or so with widespread availability of 5-axis CNC milling machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rifle was good, ACOG decision rendered it useless....we should have stayed with the S&B option.

 

Still reckon the Diemaco version was a better option.

 

I had a Diemaco as my personal weapon for a couple of years. Just another AR to my mind....the LMT is a different (better, I think) beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just another AR......it was my "just another AR"

 

I was around when we went to 417's and that was leaps and bounds in front, but still the Diemaco touches somewhere deep inside me.

 

Back to topic, you should try shooting her with the MUNS attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you shot the Sharpshooter version, but were using the suppressor from the Sniper Support Weapon.

 

It's only when you see one of these in the flesh that you can appreciate how good the quality is. The monolithic upper is one impressive bit of machining. These sorts of designs only really became feasible in the last 10 years or so with widespread availability of 5-axis CNC milling machines.

 

Using the Surefire cans is prohibited I believe.

As for the Diemaco option, as far as I know, Diemaco/Colt Canada didn't make a .30 cal version at that time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the Surefire cans is prohibited I believe.

As for the Diemaco option, as far as I know, Diemaco/Colt Canada didn't make a .30 cal version at that time

Yeah before the move over to colt there was a commission to put the 7.62 in a Diemaco action. They were made under a L number, for trials but Diemaco wanted too much for the run off, and the Diemaco 7.62 was dropped. However I believe the samples still live somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Surefires aren't prohibited. They are standard issue with the Sniper Support Weapon version of the L129A1.

 

As for Diemacos, they are not 'just another AR'. If you talk to people from Diemaco, they will tell you that M4s built according to Colt's technical data pack do not work very well. Diemaco made many modifications to come up with the TDP for the C7 and C8. They may look the same, but they work much more reliably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The Surefires aren't prohibited. They are standard issue with the Sniper Support Weapon version of the L129A1.

 

As for Diemacos, they are not 'just another AR'. If you talk to people from Diemaco, they will tell you that M4s built according to Colt's technical data pack do not work very well. Diemaco made many modifications to come up with the TDP for the C7 and C8. They may look the same, but they work much more reliably.

Well nearly all the US Army are using M4A1's made by Colt (mostly) and they apparently work just dandily.

 

As for the Surefire, I have been told by several sources that there's 'issues', and if I'm not mistaken, the suppressor in the Pic is a LEI one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well nearly all the US Army are using M4A1's made by Colt (mostly) and they apparently work just dandily.

 

As for the Surefire, I have been told by several sources that there's 'issues', and if I'm not mistaken, the suppressor in the Pic is a LEI one

Nice to meet fellow soldiers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M4 has to be one of the biggest marketing confidence tricks of all time. Jim Sullivan, the designer of the AR15 has made numerous statements about the mistakes that Colt made with the design of the M4. Of course, they work fine most of the time, especially if you can keep them clean. But if you put M4s through the standard NATO sand, dust, mud and ice tests, then their reliability is very poor. Diemacos are much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Diemacos, they are not 'just another AR'. If you talk to people from Diemaco, they will tell you that M4s built according to Colt's technical data pack do not work very well. Diemaco made many modifications to come up with the TDP for the C7 and C8. They may look the same, but they work much more reliably.

 

Well that edumacates me :) - It was a time in my life when I wasn't geeking at the bits of kit - I'd have the bloomin thing apart under a magnifying glass nowadays. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have fully read this post now. Some good pics as well. The accuracy does not surprise me at all. My castrated version shoots under 1MOA most of the time. I trialled the proper self loading version against the HK 417 and the FN Scar. It won hands down, the HK being somewhat less accurate than claimed and having a propensity to fire more than one round on each pull of the trigger. This was sorted but there is quite a lot of suggestion about HKs claims about the 417. The Scar was a more interesting concept. The control features were almost the same as another HK product which made it attractive but it was quite unpleasant to shoot. May have been me of course! Basically Scar and 417 shot saucer sized groups and the LMT was egg cup sized at 100 yards. (This is why I bought one)

 

Sitting systems were switched around, Elcans , Trijicon and Leupold CQTs did not make very much difference. Best results were however with PM11s. I think the LMT barrel is the key. Stainless 16 inch barrel which I am assuming is cut rifling instead of chromed.

 

Downsides/upsides and comparisons:

The Scar is easy to convert HK G36 uses to as long as they can stand the recoil. Great to carry around but you will eventually have to shoot it.

The 417 does look like quality. I like the butt stock over the LMT version but you do need HK mags. As a piston gun it may be cleaner. This may be an accuracy issue!

The LMT is well made, if I am picky you can misasemble the firing pin and bolt head and get a fail to fire.

Just my view of course, each to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy